Let's be less sectarian: favorites and least favorites... [Archive]

NoOneIsIllegal

28th December 2011, 20:47

NoOneIsIllegal

28th December 2011, 20:57

I'll start, I suppose.

Since I'm an anarkist dewd:
(I'm obviously going to talk about class-struggle anarchists, not individualist bullshit)

Favorite Marxist...
I like Rosa Luxemburg a lot. I often thought of her as the ideological heir of Marx and Engels. She has legitimate criticisms of the trade-union "movement" in Germany, along with ideological concerns towards Lenin. She based all her work strictly in theory and fact. At a time when Social Democratic parties thought a revolution or change of the world could be planned, she stressed the need of spontaneous movements, and the Mass Strike (once again, due to the missing backbone of the labor movement). I think she was a brilliant person from what I know of her, and have always enjoyed what I had read of her.

Least favorite anarchist...
Bakunin. This is a personal choice. I think he was extremely helpful in stressing the need of action rather than theory. However, he placed a tremendous amount of time on the state and religion, rather than capitalism itself. HOWEVER, this is completely understandable considering the world he lived in: 19th century Russia. The crushing weight of the Tsar on his back, along the Church breathing down his neck his entire life. Living in the times and places he had been, I would of been just like him. But, in this modern age, what he had to say just isn't as relatable to me. I'll always be thankful for big daddy Bakunin and the First International, but I always thought of the figures in the 1870s and 1880's as those who really pushed class-struggle anarchism (Malatesta, Kropotkin, Cafiero, Costa, birth of the Spanish anarchists). I rather have Rocker, Malatesta, or Parsons in my cup of anarky.

Tim Cornelis

28th December 2011, 21:10

As an anarchist...

...my favourite Marxist
is Paul Mattick or Anton Pannekoek (no suprise there I guess)

my least favourite anarchist

would be Luigi Galleani, because bombing without structure to back it is silly.

The Douche

28th December 2011, 21:18

Moved the thread to non-poli cause I don't think its serious enough for politics, we can move it back if it gets serious.

Since I see myself as coming equally from the marxist tradition and anarchist tradition:

Favorite Marxist:

Young Marx because I love the way he deals with alienation.

Favorite Anarchist:

Bonanno because Armed Joy had a profound influence on my politics and because he's a total bad ass.

Least favorite Marxist:

Stalin, I guess, I can't think of anything that I feel was a positive contribution from him that effected my politics.

Least favorite anarchist:

Bookchin, total leftist nerd and ultra-secterian.

Ele'ill

28th December 2011, 21:29

I don't have favorites. I guess I took the ideas and left the people behind.

Tim Finnegan

28th December 2011, 21:52

I don't have favorites. I guess I took the ideas and left the people behind.
Well aren't you so very cool and aloof.

Comrade J

28th December 2011, 22:53

Shouldn't this be in Chit-Chat? Not really a discussion, more some sort of game..?

NewLeft

29th December 2011, 08:52

Favourite Marxist: Raya Dunayevskaya.. Cool books.
Favourite anarchist: Noam Chomsky (lol)

Panda Tse Tung

29th December 2011, 17:48

Favorite anarchist:
Durruti, i like his swag.

Least favorite Marxist:
Sartre, elitist prick.

Os Cangaceiros

29th December 2011, 18:16

Marxists and non-anarchist socialists: James Connolly, Eugene Debs, Amilcar Cabral, Seamus Costello

least favorite anarchists: Bookchin, I guess. Never got much out of him.

Ocean Seal

29th December 2011, 18:25

My favorite anarchist is Durruti because of perhaps the stories that surrounded him, and the amount of working class support which he was able to elicit.

My least favorite Marxist is probably Khrushchev because of the co-existance with capitalism idea.

Zav

29th December 2011, 18:37

As an Anarchist, my favorite Marxist would be Che. He is the epitome of the heroic rebel archetype.
My least favorite Anarchist is Proudhon. Something about his works make me want to punch him in the face.

Luc

29th December 2011, 18:45

Anarchist,

My favourite "marxist" would be Marx himself because of his economic and dare I say "scientific" (w/e one wants to call it) critique of capitalism which I haven't come across from any anarchist which sorta bugs me. Don't get me wrong there stuff against the state I love but not much in the way of economics :unsure:, but of course I still have quite a bit to read.

My least favourite anarchist would be Max Stirner; fucking individualism!

Ele'ill

29th December 2011, 21:16

Well aren't you so very cool and aloof.

I'm just thrifty. :sleep:

Rafiq

29th December 2011, 23:42

Favorite Anarchist

Judah Grossman-Roshchin, former anarchist who became a marxist

Least favorite Marxist

The libertarians

ComradeGrant

29th December 2011, 23:48

Rafiq I don't think that counts.

Favorite Marxist: Rosa Luxemburg, for the same reasons NoOneisIllegal mentioned.
Least favorite Anarchist: Proudhon. Mutualism is eh.

citizen of industry

30th December 2011, 00:26

Favorite anarchist- Emma Goldman
Least favorite Marxist- Georg Lukacs

Ostrinski

30th December 2011, 00:42

Favorite anarchist- Durruti
Least favorite Marxist- Avakian

The Douche

30th December 2011, 02:34

Blake's Baby

30th December 2011, 02:44

This is harder than it looks.

Favourite Anarchist: Berkman, with Maximov, Goldman, and Kropotkin (pre-WWI) riding very close behind.

Least favourite Marxist: depends what you mean. Stalin, if he can be considered a Marxist. Then there's all the so-called Marxists of the social-patriot school in whatever country, who betrayed the working class. All of them count as my least favourite.

But maybe that's a cop-out as I don't think any of them were actually Marxists. So, real Marxists... Lenin and Trotsky both did very bad things. Bukharin and Zinoviev and Dzerzhinsky, too. Bordiga was an ass sometimes. Pankhurst became a third-worldist. Karl Leibknecht was a passionate idiot. Pannekoek really lost it from the 1930s onwards. On the whole, least favourite person that I actually think was a Marxist, I'll give the title to Lenin, slightly ahead of Trotsky.

StalinFanboy

30th December 2011, 09:08

i tell anarchists that i am a marxist, and i tell marxists that i am an anarchist

favorite anarchist: malatesta, bonnano

favorite marxist: debord, dauve

least favorite anarchist: boochkin

least favorite marxist: stalin

NoOneIsIllegal

30th December 2011, 13:47

This is harder than it looks.

....

Least favourite Marxist: depends what you mean. Stalin, if he can be considered a Marxist. Then there's all the so-called Marxists of the social-patriot school in whatever country, who betrayed the working class. All of them count as my least favourite.
This. I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your post.
When I did my "least favorite anarchist" I was trying to aim for class-struggle anarchists; anarchists I find relevant to the struggle today. It would of been much too easy to say someone like Benjamin Tucker, or Max Stirner, who have been called "anarchists' but honestly I don't think they are. Hence I chose Bakunin.

favorite anarchist: malatesta
:wub: :thumbup:

Bookchin, total leftist nerd and ultra-secterian.

Bookchin, I guess. Never got much out of him.

least favorite anarchist: boochkin
He's the one fellow I have no clue or opinion about. Typically I don't hear good things about him. I heard he was very sectarian against the Anarcho-Syndicalists of the Spanish Civil War, and had some really weird ideas later in his life? :confused:

The Douche

30th December 2011, 14:54

This. I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your post.
When I did my "least favorite anarchist" I was trying to aim for class-struggle anarchists; anarchists I find relevant to the struggle today. It would of been much too easy to say someone like Benjamin Tucker, or Max Stirner, who have been called "anarchists' but honestly I don't think they are. Hence I chose Bakunin.

:wub: :thumbup:

He's the one fellow I have no clue or opinion about. Typically I don't hear good things about him. I heard he was very sectarian against the Anarcho-Syndicalists of the Spanish Civil War, and had some really weird ideas later in his life? :confused:

Why does everybody hate on Stirner? Stirner was a communist, afterall, I wish I was more familiar with his work than I am so I could get really get into discussions about him, I get the the impression that everybody who hates him just thinks individualist means capitalist.

As for Bookchin, he was first a stalinist (born into a family who had been involved with the russian revolution), was purged, became a trot, got disillusioned, became a libertarian socialist of sorts (with a focus on ecology), became an anarchist of sorts, then decided anarchism was "rooted in individualism" and came up with his own ideology called "social ecology".

I hate him mostly because his stupid text "Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism - An Unbridgable Chasm" was thrown around so much when I got into anarchy.

Искра

30th December 2011, 15:01

Stirner was fucking liberal idiot. I've actually read his book back in 2006. What a lot of bullshit.

Anyhow, favorite anarchist? Ricardo Flores Magon and Lev Zadov.
"Worst" Marxist? Even if we exclude all those Marxist who become liberals (like Stalin, Trotsky, Kautsky etc.) I would still say Trotsky.

Sasha

30th December 2011, 15:03

Fav anarcho's: historical: Emma Goldman, makhno, kropotkin, contemporary: peter gelderloos, Ian bone, bonanno.
Fav marxists: historical: Luxembourg, Adorno, debord, contemporary: negri
Least Fav anarcho's: bakoenin, bookchin
Least fav marxists:
http://dornsife.usc.edu/cdd/civic/bmus/attachments/13340267/13534071.png

(and yes Marx and engels are included in that lists on being irl dicks)

Luc

30th December 2011, 15:16

How can you be an anarchist if you don't believe in individualism?

I meant individualism against communism or w/e egoism?

Arg I should have kept my mouth shut, you see; I haven't read much and often ignorantly talk about stuff, I apologize :lol: and won't do it again.

The Douche

30th December 2011, 15:37

I meant individualism against communism or w/e egoism?

Arg I should have kept my mouth shut, you see; I haven't read much and often ignorantly talk about stuff, I apologize :lol: and won't do it again.

Stirner wasn't against communism, he called himself/his thought anarchistic-socialism.

I'm not a stirnerist (I don't think anybody is, in a meaningful way, now) but I think incorporating some Stirner into one's politics is probably healthy, but I'm still trying to pin down exactly how I feel about him.

Tim Finnegan

30th December 2011, 15:45

He's the one fellow I have no clue or opinion about. Typically I don't hear good things about him. I heard he was very sectarian against the Anarcho-Syndicalists of the Spanish Civil War, and had some really weird ideas later in his life? :confused:

As for Bookchin, he was first a stalinist (born into a family who had been involved with the russian revolution), was purged, became a trot, got disillusioned, became a libertarian socialist of sorts (with a focus on ecology), became an anarchist of sorts, then decided anarchism was "rooted in individualism" and came up with his own ideology called "social ecology".

I hate him mostly because his stupid text "Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism - An Unbridgable Chasm" was thrown around so much when I got into anarchy.
I actually don't mind Bookchin. He has his problems, sure enough, but he still has a lot of stuff that's worth checking out. I tend to think that he's someone you should read critically, rather than just not read at all.

(Although "Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism" is really boring, yeah. Could not get through that.)

Искра

30th December 2011, 15:47

Actually, Stirner opposed any kind of communism. He claimed that communism is against individual. Also, he was against state because its against individual, but he didn't have anything against individual using state for his benefits. As I said - an idiot.

Die Neue Zeit

30th December 2011, 15:49

Alright, this is a pretty casual subject, but let's be serious about it too! We have too many jerk-off's of "omgz, this socialist is so great!" and "nuh uh, total revisionist! counter-revolutionary!"
Back and forth, back and forth...

Let's pat each other on the back, and take a swing at our own "team".

- If you're an anarchist, who is your favorite Marxist? Plus, who is your least favorite anarchist?
- If you're a Marxist, who is your favorite anarchist? Who is your least favorite Marxist?

Dumb topic, I know. But I am interested. :lol: Explain away!

Favourite anarchist: Wayne Price
Least favourite Marxists: Georg Lukacs, Karl Korsch, Paresh Chattopadhyay, Jairus Banaji, Gilles Dauve

I actually don't mind Bookchin. He has his problems, sure enough, but he still has a lot of stuff that's worth checking out. I tend to think that he's someone you should read critically, rather than just not read at all.

(Although "Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism" is really boring, yeah. Could not get through that.)

On the subject of "left libertarianism," hasn't Kevin Carson made better arguments?

The Douche

30th December 2011, 15:54

Susurrus

30th December 2011, 16:43

Stirner seems to have great resentment against the utopian socialists, rather than marxists. Here is his principle critique of "social liberalism":
By the principle of labour that of fortune or competition is certainly outdone. But at the same time the labourer, in his consciousness that the essential thing in him is "the labourer," holds himself aloof from egoism and subjects himself to the supremacy of a society of labourers, as the commoner clung with self-abandonment to the competition-state. The beautiful dream of a "social duty" still continues to be dreamed. People think again that society gives what we need, and we are under obligations to it on that account, owe it everything. They are still at the point of wanting to serve a "supreme giver of all good." That society is no ego at all, which could give, bestow, or grant, but an instrument or means, from which we may derive benefit; that we have no social duties, but solely interests for the pursuance of which society must serve us; that we owe society no sacrifice, but, if we sacrifice anything, sacrifice it to ourselves - of this the Socialists do not think, because they - as liberals - are imprisoned in the religious principle, and zealously aspire after - a sacred society, such as the state was hitherto.
Society, from which we have everything, is a new master, a new spook, a new "supreme being," which "takes us into its service and allegiance!"

This seems similar to Marx's ideas of society being composed of individuals and class division and the alienation of labour. But I haven't read the whole book, and could be wrong.

Oh and favorite anarchist: Malatesta or Stepan Maximovich Petrichenko
Favorite marxist: Probably George Orwell, but if he's not a marxist, Sartre or Bill Haywood.
Least Favorite anarchist: John Zerzan
Least Favorite marxist: Other than the "marxist" dictators, probably Bukharin.

Rusty Shackleford

30th December 2011, 17:29

How is a union of egoists not communist in function?
because its the opposite mentality of collectivism? united only by the desire to be 'individual.'

where does class fit into egoist anarchism?
what about social progress?
MoPs?

the way i view that union of egioists is this.

think of a hand full of negative charges centering around one positive charge. in this case, the ideal of individualism and mutual guarantee of it is the positive, but when the members relate to one another (the negatives) they maintain their distance and repel each other.

Rafiq

30th December 2011, 17:45

Oh and favorite anarchist: Malatesta or Stepan Maximovich Petrichenko
Favorite marxist: Probably George Orwell.
Least Favorite anarchist: John Zerzan
Least Favorite marxist: Other than the "marxist" dictators, probably Bukharin.

Orwell wasn't a Marxist.

Susurrus

30th December 2011, 17:56

Orwell wasn't a Marxist.

How so?

Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic Socialism, as I understand it. It seems to me nonsense, in a period like our own, to think that one can avoid writing of such subjects.

Rafiq

30th December 2011, 21:17

How so?

He was a socialist but not a marxist.

StalinFanboy

30th December 2011, 21:26

because its the opposite mentality of collectivism? united only by the desire to be 'individual.'
No. You are completely wrong. I have a lot of problems with egoism (and my housemate is a pretty staunch egoist and my friends are currently producing the only egoist anarchist journal in the US right now), but if you're going to critique then do it right.

Egoist isnt about desiring to be individual. it argues that we are individual bodies with our own unique experiences, and it is through our bodies that we experience the world.

You are right though that is opposed to massified sociality or forced collectivism. The most important thing about the egoists is that they were among the first to have a critique of civil society and its inherent domination over life. In very, very simply terms, egoism argues that we should do things with people we like/get along with. I agree with many, if not all, aspects of their critique of society, but i disagree with their conclusion. That the point of human unity is the body or the individual.

In any case, Stirner himself was involved in quite a few collective projects.

where does class fit into egoist anarchism? It doesnt. Obviously. But, you know that communism existed long before Marx and Engels came along with their productivist view of everything, right?

what about social progress? what about social progress? what exactly does this mean? do you mean the continuation and intensification of mass civil society? if so, then no, the egoists are against that. still doesnt mean they arent communists in the sense of the word meaning a world without classes or states.

MoPs? see the first one.

the way i view that union of egioists is this.

think of a hand full of negative charges centering around one positive charge. in this case, the ideal of individualism and mutual guarantee of it is the positive, but when the members relate to one another (the negatives) they maintain their distance and repel each other.
This doesnt make any sense.

Tim Finnegan

30th December 2011, 23:44

because its the opposite mentality of collectivism? united only by the desire to be 'individual.'
What's a "mentality of collectivism" when it's at home?

NewLeft

31st December 2011, 07:03

On the topic of Bookchin, what do you think of his 'post-scarcity anarchism'?

Frank Zapatista

31st December 2011, 09:25

Favourite Anarchist: Proudhon, I suppose. His writing was some of the first leftist works I ever read after having them recommended to me by a teacher. His notion that property is theft was an entirely new idea to me and if impacted me greatly.

Least favourite Marxist: Besides the genocidal crazy "marxists" like Pol Pot, Id have to say, Joseph Stalin... Oh, wait.